There are 258482 comments on the
Webbunny tumblelog
story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?.
In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

To 'astra'Care to look at the violence you and your kind cause?Bombing abortion clinics. That wasn't atheists.They didn't bomb churches, that was you folks.Atheists also don't expect free trips all over the world that are paid by someone else so they can proselytize in countries where such actions are illegal. Again that's YOUR group.Shall we look at the 103 verses of the Bible that instruct your missionaries to obey civil laws?Didn't think so.

Atheists are the worst killers humanity has ever come across.

"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

State atheism in Albania was taken to an extreme during the totalitarian regime installed after World War II, when religions, identified as imports foreign to Albanian culture, were banned altogether.[30] The Agrarian Reform Law of August 1945 nationalized most property of religious institutions, including the estates of monasteries, orders, and dioceses. Many clergy and believers were tried, tortured, and executed."

<quoted text>Well, at least you have the decency to admit it's just opinion.Which makes me ask.... why?Since, as you claim, it's literally of infinite significance?Why?Why did your god not do better than that?What was his agenda, in allowing such obfuscation to creep in to his "message"?And why not re-release a **modern** update? One that is clearly and without any doubts, of **divine** origins?And don't try the dodge of "faith"... that won't wash.Infinite significance, remember? To rely on the untrustworthy faith?Is to be evil.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here Bob. I'm confused by your wording. Untrustworthy faith? Trust is faith. That's the way I've always understood the word. If you have faith in something, it's because you trust it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the dodge of faith." I truly want to answer your question Bob. I appreciate your kindness and your integrity. I see no difference between us, other than our worldview.Perhaps if you explain what you mean, I can answer you. My answer may not be satisfactory to your sensibilities, but it will be an honest answer. You deserve no less than that.

<quoted text>In my opinion, if there is nothing after life, then it's up to us to make every day count for something. If you've only got one chance, make the most of it.Why does everything have to have a purpose for you to qualify? If you want everything to be structured and balanced, that's fine. Just be aware that you may not get it, no matter how badly you want it. Wouldn't you be better off woking with what you've got?

It takes some courage to even entertain the possibility that there may be nothing after life, would you agree? We cling to life, understandably; it's the only reality we really know. But why do some religious people want "eternal life?" Why do they see their own lives as so important, that they must continue.. FOREVER? Can there be some satisfaction in knowing that, after one dies, others will carry on with the challenges, the sorrows, the joys of life? Maybe do better than we did? Is seeking eternal life sort of being like the kid on the merry-go-round who never wants to get off and give someone else a turn? Is it an expression of ultimate selfishness? Just wondering.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the dodge of faith." I truly want to answer your question Bob. I appreciate your kindness and your integrity. I see no difference between us, other than our worldview.Perhaps if you explain what you mean, I can answer you. My answer may not be satisfactory to your sensibilities, but it will be an honest answer. You deserve no less than that.

Thanks. I **have** enjoyed our exchanges immensely. Makes me think.

I will be interested in how you answer the "dodge of faith" question.

I've asked this of other thoughtful people before.

Nobody, so far, can answer without retreating back into the false idea of faith.

<quoted text>It takes some courage to even entertain the possibility that there may be nothing after life, would you agree? We cling to life, understandably; it's the only reality we really know. But why do some religious people want "eternal life?" Why do they see their own lives as so important, that they must continue.. FOREVER? Can there be some satisfaction in knowing that, after one dies, others will carry on with the challenges, the sorrows, the joys of life? Maybe do better than we did? Is seeking eternal life sort of being like the kid on the merry-go-round who never wants to get off and give someone else a turn? Is it an expression of ultimate selfishness? Just wondering.

The allure of supposed immortality is a strong one.

It can also be (albeit dubious) comfort to someone who's come face-to-face with their own or their loved one's mortality.

Of course, once a person is deeply indoctrinated, that very mind-meme will seem to "fight" any attempts to dislodge it.

Paul wrote first and likely within 3-5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, and not decades later as you claim without proof or any supporting evidence. Here's how we can be highly confident of that:Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthian church in 96A.D. in which he talks about the earlier letters of Paul they had received and were holding. This letter of Clement still exists and can be read today. In that letter, in chapter 47, Clement writes:"Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you."Cephas was the disciple Peter who converted Clement. In this letter, Clement plainly says that Paul started writing when the gospel was starting to be preached. Since Christianity started in Jerusalem, this has to be very early. It took months for the gospel to circulate.

I don't find this particularly convincing. Among other things, someone writing from the perspective of 50+ years later may very well see the first few decades as when things 'first began'. It is certainly far from clear that this means within the first 3-5 years. Furthermore, it isn't completely clear how long of a delay there was between the events and when people began to preach about the events. And how do you know this letter relates to events in Jerusalem? At best, it relates to when factions began to be formed in the early community. Since Paul was one of the foci for the development of such factions, your evidence is, at best, ambiguous.

Source that there are no unbiased historians please. Wow you totally pulled that one out if your christhole. I would be humiliated to assume such a thing. I am not biased against the idea that Jesus existed, I am merely correctly stating that there is no historical proof for his existence. Sorry you don't like the facts when they contradict your biases.

Your apologetic book does not reflect on the majority of scholars. Produce a secular non apologetic scholar making that claim and we can go from there. See? I can answer questions, unlike you.

How could you possibly know what I like or don't like? Again you are assuming way too much and making a fool of yourself. Let's see if you are able to answer in a factual non apologetic opinionated way...

Proof that Paul supposedly wrote this 3-5 years later? We'll assume that this Paul even existed for the time being. That would fly in the face of conventional reasoning because the earliest shred of gospel doesn't appear until over 50 years later. Proof please. The only historically accurate letter of Clement is a letter to a church in Corinth berating church leadership. Anything else is a later writing attributed to him. And even if those weren't an early Christian forgery as is so prevalent in those days, he is doing nothing more than writing early Christian beliefs. Again this on no way answers why this man Paul, who we'll pretend existed for now, would be the first to write about this miracle man son of god instead of people who had actually supposedly met him. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

As expected you did not answer the question but rather desperately tried to change the subject in an effort to proselytize. Epic fail.

Lol expansion and compression! Lmfao! Come on man that is a total cop out and you know it. Apologetic bleating at it's finest! How could you possibly know the writer is doing that since we have no idea the person who actually wrote them? Provide the actual author and them documenting that they cruelly did this. Otherwise you are just making sht up again and you know it.

Tell me compress and expand where Jesus was born. Was it in Mary and Joseph's home or in a manger? Lol! So silly! Epic fail as expected. There are several errors and contradictions in the gospels and we don't need to compress or expand them to see them.

If I were a history student looking into the matter of Jesus' resurrection I would seek out verifiable, unbiased sources showing such a thing was even considered to have happened. Such an event would have been clearly documented by many in that time period especially since he marched into Jerusalem with hundreds of resurrected dead Jewish Prophets walking behind him. Such a thing surely would have been noticed correct? It would have made more waves than pottery sales yes?

Roman Apologist wrote:

That's not possible. No historian investigates the past without bias.

I notice you didn't say anything when I demonstrated that the books and the ten tests actually exist.

I'll be glad to fill in the blanks for you, but on my terms,And you don't like that do you?

Paul wrote first and likely within 3-5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthian church in 96A.D. in which he talks about the earlier letters of Paul.

Now for challenge 2:

The alleged contradictions in the New Testament are only apparent contradictions. Meaning, they can be reconciled by knowing the context, the culture, the style of writing, etc.

For example, there is the subject of expansion and compression. How many women or angels were at the empty tomb is a great example of an apparent contradiction, and it's only because of one writer compressing the account.

Now I have a question for you.

If you were a history student, and were given the assignment of looking for historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, how would you proceed?

I already asked him to illustrate how they were incorrect and as expected he fled the question in terror. When you just pull stuff right out of your christhole such critical thinking questions are terrifying.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>Well, at least you have the decency to admit it's just opinion.

Which makes me ask.... why?

Since, as you claim, it's literally of infinite significance?

Why?

Why did your god not do better than that?

What was his agenda, in allowing such obfuscation to creep in to his "message"?

And why not re-release a **modern** update? One that is clearly and without any doubts, of **divine** origins?

<quoted text>I don't find this particularly convincing. Among other things, someone writing from the perspective of 50+ years later may very well see the first few decades as when things 'first began'. It is certainly far from clear that this means within the first 3-5 years. Furthermore, it isn't completely clear how long of a delay there was between the events and when people began to preach about the events. And how do you know this letter relates to events in Jerusalem? At best, it relates to when factions began to be formed in the early community. Since Paul was one of the foci for the development of such factions, your evidence is, at best, ambiguous.

Yes, I agree with you-- the most optimistic dates appear to be no earlier than 60CE. And possibly as late as 120CE.

But even 60CE is too little, too late-- with an average lifespan of barely 30 years? Likely nobody alive, by 60CE, who was at the alleged events.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.